Statement of Consideration (SOC)
The following comments were received in response to SOP drafts sent for field review. Thanks to those who reviewed and commented. Comments about typographical and grammatical errors are excluded; these errors have been corrected as appropriate.
1. Comment: SOP 7B, 2nd bullet point (pg. 1)-CPS Investigation or Family in Need of Services Assessment (FINSA): regarding the statement: “If imminent risk of harm to a child is evident, removal of the child(ren) is considered through the Utilization Review Consultation process.” This section needs to address emergency situations when minutes, not hours count. Include FSOS contact and police and judge involvement. In these situations, a URC should be held ASAP to determine if removal is to continue.
Response: The URC SOP content was written by the SRA’s and there are aspects of this SOP that can be changed to suit regional protocol. This comment should be addressed on the regional level so that emergency response is tailored to suit the needs of the individual region. No change was made as a result of this comment.
- Comment: SOP 7B (pg. 1)-CPS Investigation or Family in Need of Services Assessment (FINSA) and SOP 7B.6 (pg. 11)-Assessment and Prevention Planning: 1. What is the Utilization Review Consultation in regards to assessing imminent risk of harm and removal? 2. How does requesting and arranging a URC fit into the tight timeframes and immediate need for action in imminent risk cases? 3. Jefferson Region has Facilitated Staffings (some counties in No. BG Region do too) on all planned removals. Can the SOP please allow for a URC or Facilitated Staffing?
Response: See answer to comment #1.
- Comment: SOP 7B.1, #2 (pg. 2)-Worker Safety: The wording “prior to initiating a report” should be added here as well so that staff do not confuse this with the required completion of the AOC during the investigation.
Response: Running an AOC check prior to initiating a report is not a mandatory action. A check can be completed prior to initiation, but the SSW must still meet initiation timeframe requirements for each referral taken. No change was made as a result of this comment.
4. Comment: SOP 7B.1, #4(c) (pg. 2)-Worker Safety: Regarding an office visit with the family if it is thought to be a dangerous situation: Need clarification: does this mean after the safety issues have been addressed a visit would need to be done in the home later, or are we exempt from doing a face to face in the home during the investigation?
Response: It is best practice to see the family in their home if at all possible. This amendment has been added only as an option if law enforcement or a co-worker is unable to accompany the SSW and there are well documented safety risks regarding this family. If a SSW cannot see the family in their home for purposes of initiation, an office visit is acceptable as long as the family is seen in their home at some point during the investigation or FINSA. No change was made as a result of this comment.
5. Comment: SOP 7B.2, #1 (pg. 3)-Onsite Investigation/FINSA Requests: Could a provision be added that the FSOS could make the decision to allow the county who has the majority of the parties complete the investigation? For example: if the perpetrator is in one county, but all other individuals are in another county, the one with the most people could do the investigation and ask the other county for courtesy services since they only have the perpetrator and all services for the victim would be in the county that has the victim.
Response: This provision has been created in order to bring consistency across the state regarding onsite services requests. No change was made as a result of this comment.
6. Comment: SOP 7B.2, #4 (pg. 3)-Onsite Investigation/FINSA Requests: Please be more specific to the distance. Does the 50 mile rule apply here or only to ongoing cases requesting an on site worker? I ask this question as we are often requested to conduct interviews and initiate referrals for counties that are less than 30 miles away, however, the county may be in a different region (specifically FayetteCounty which is less than 30 minutes from here).
Response: There are no mileage requirements for onsite services regarding investigations or FINSAs. This applies only to ongoing case requirements. The main issue is to ensure that all timeframes are met and to have the most appropriate worker complete interviews or obtain information regarding the family during an investigation or FINSA. No change was made as a result of this comment.
7. Comment: SOP 7B.2, #7 (pg. 3)-Onsite Investigation/FINSA Requests: if the other state does not request interviews and not all of the family lives here (so we don’t complete a referral in TWIST), how do we document that we have assessed the current safety of the children due to risk of harm? Should this be entered as a Resource Link?
Response: If the other state chooses not to accept the referral or conduct interviews, and the child and parent(s) are residing in Kentucky, the Cabinet accepts the referral and handles it as any other Risk of Harm report. No change was made as a result of this comment.
8. Comment: SOP 7B.2, #7(d) (pg. 4)-Onsite Investigation/FINSA Requests: Could the FSOS make the determination depending on the nature of the allegations? For example: if you have a physical or sexual abuse allegation it would be different than investigating an environmental neglect that occurred in another state.
Response: Centralized Intake makes the determination based on any immediate safety needs of the child(ren) who may be located in Kentucky. Risk of Harm is then considered when an allegation or incident occurs in another state, but the child is now in Kentucky and is at risk from the alleged perpetrator. For instance, if a mother gets a DUI in another state with the children in the car, but the family lives here in Kentucky, the children are assessed for risk of harm based on the fact that they reside with their mother. Another example might be a child who is physically abused while visiting his/her father in another state. Even though the physical abuse occurred in another state, a Risk of Harm report could be taken in Kentucky in order to ensure the child is protected on future visits. No change was made as a result of this comment.
9. Comment: SOP 7B.2, #’s 10 and 11 (pg. 4)-Onsite Investigation/FINSA Requests: regarding on site interview requests by other counties. I don’t understand why the information needs to be sent back to centralized intake. The way we handle these situations in our region is after we receive a report and send it out for investigation to a county and that county finds that the family is no longer residing in their county, they contact the county where they are currently residing. The county receiving the report initially, documents all information they have completed in the case and then transfers the case to the county where the family is residing, unless they have conducted interviews with the children and/or parents then they would share the case if other interviews are needed with the county where the family is actually residing. I think that once centralized intake has received a report, determined that it meets criteria and send it out to the address given at the time of the report, then that should be all they need to do. If the county initially receiving the referral determines that the family is not living in their county then they need to document and transfer the case as stated in SOP.
Response: This requirement was included in the SOP in order to bring consistency across the state and to ensure that referrals are assigned to the appropriate investigative staff. Some regions have specialized teams that handle certain types of reports. No change was made as a result of this comment.
10. Comment: SOP 7B.3, #2 (pg. 5)-Initiating: The “Note” on Sexual Abuse appears to refer to the previous paragraph, but nothing in this section discusses Sexual Abuse.
Response: The link to the regulation lists timeframes specifically for all types of abuse and neglect; however, a link to the definition of Imminent Risk was added to the SOP which indicates that sexual abuse is one hour unless certain conditions exist. The “Note” listed in the SOP under 2(c) has been moved to underneath 2 (a) as a result of this comment in order to clarify this procedure.
11. Comment: SOP 7B.3, #2 (pg. 5)-Initiating and the definition of “Initiate” (pg. 35): The especially stringent and unrealistic expectation of initiation, defined as face-to-face contact with the victim within timeframes, precludes the exhaustion of good faith efforts to locate and interview victim counting as initiation of case. Documentation of efforts in the CQA does not help the stats regarding timeframes if face-to-face is the only event that “counts.” Prior SOP definition allowed for legitimate good faith “attempts” to count as initiation.
Response: The definition of initiation has always been face to face contact. This definition was also used during the previous Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). The initiation template that is used in investigation and FINSA CQAs enables the Cabinet to capture the legitimate attempts as well. This will hopefully be embedded in TWIST by the end of this year. Data can then be used more effectively in management reports and worker evaluations. Central Office is currently working on regulation and amendments to broaden initiation timeframes. No change was made as a result of this comment.
- Comment: 7B.3, Introduction, first statement (pg. 5)-Initiating: states that a report is considered initiated when face to face contact with the reported victim occurs. This does not allow any conditions of multiple efforts to make contact as counting as initiation. Workers are penalized as being out of compliance with SOP for reasons beyond their control. Can we somehow allow for FSOS or Associate to approve exceptions? Also, prior SOP allowed contact with the victims to count as initiation when there may be multiple victims. The new SOP does not specify this.
Response: See response to number 11.
- Comment: SOP 7B.3-Initiating-Introduction (pg. 5): “a report is considered initiated when face to face contact with the reported victim occurs.” This is not always feasible in imminent risk referrals-especially in areas where it takes at least an hour and longer to travel to the victim’s location. Concern was also noted regarding inclusion of Centralized Intake time in the one hour initiation and that the referral time is already ticking by the time it gets to the front line FSOS. Specialized Investigations and out of county or region special assignments also prevent face to fact being completed within the one hour time frame when travel across region or into another region is required. Legitimate attempts to complete the face to face should be considered.
Response: See response to number 11.
14.Comment: SOP 7B.3, #2(c) (pg. 5)-Initiating: The SOP states that an exception for initiation of sexual abuse referrals may occur if there are clear indications from the referral source that the alleged perpetrator does not have immediate access to the alleged victim or other children in the home. If the referral source states the child would be put at risk to initiate within one hour, could a provision be added that the FSOS or regional staff grants permission to miss the one hour response time and document the reason in the CQA?
Response: Based on current regulatory guidelines and KRS, the agency is mandated to respond to a sexual abuse allegation within one (1) hour unless it is clearly documented that the perpetrator has no current access to the child.
15. Comment: SOP 7B.4, #1 (pg. 7)-Interviewing: Should this include consideration of initiation of timeframes?
Response: Timeframes have been set by regulation and are required in all investigations and FINSAs. Best practice is to interview children first. No change was made as a result of this comment.
16. Comment: SOP 7B.4, #2(b) (pg. 7)-Interviewing: Suggest it should read that the SSW has face to face contact with all minor children in the home, regardless of age.
Response: Wording in this section has been changed to read “The SSW conducts face-to-face interviews with all children in the home.” If the child is too young to interview, the SSW should visually observe the child and document observations.
17. Comment: SOP 7B.4, #4 (pg. 7)-Interviewing: “SSW interviews the parent/caretaker in the home unless there are documented worker safety issues.” This is too strict of a directive and maybe could be adjusted to say “preferably in the home,” as earlier stated on page 6 (7B.3, #6): “SSW makes face-to face contact with the parent/caretaker preferably in their home, after interviewing the child(ren).” There should be some discretion given to SSW in consultation with FSOS in this and similar matters.
Response: Both statements in this comment have been changed to read the same way. The new language states, “The SSW makes face-to-face contact with the parent/caretaker in their home during the course of the investigation or FINSA, after interviewing the child(ren) unless there are documented safety issues.” Not seeing the family in their home should be the exception, not the rule. In order to ensure proper assessment of the family and their situation in the most comprehensive manner, contact with the family in their home during an investigation or FINSA must occur. The clearer language in this SOP brings consistency across the state.
18. Comment: SOP 7B.4, #4 (pg. 7)-Interviewing: “The SSW interviews the parent/caretaker in the home unless there are documented safety issues.” 1. There are situations currently in which an SSW may choose to interview a parent in the office. For instance, it may be the quickest way to get a face to face interview with the parent and therefore the best choice for making timely initial assessments regarding risk. There should be the ability to use discretion with the location of the interview with the understanding that it is preferred to interview the parent within the home. Perhaps allow for the FSOS approval for this to occur? 2. In out of home investigations an interview in the home is not typically conducted nor would it be warranted since the child’s home situation is not being assessed during such investigations.
Response: 1. See answer for #17. An interview in the office is acceptable for initiation, but the SSW must see the family in their home at some point during the investigation.
2. The term “home” refers to where the child is residing at the time of the referral. If the child is in Out of Home Care, their home is the foster home and an interview in the birth family’s home is not necessarily required.
19. Comment: SOP 7B.4, #4 (pg. 7)-Interviewing: There is no mention in this section of giving the alleged perpetrator the DPP-155. Is this no longer required upon initial contact with the alleged perpetrator?
Response: This is still a requirement upon initial contact with the alleged perpetrator. It was inadvertently deleted during the revision stage and has been added back in. In order to meet the requirements of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) staff must inform a parent/perpetrator of the allegations against them at the beginning of an investigation or FINSA and must also let them know the process for filing a complaint. The DPP-155 form serves a dual purpose. The client uses it to appeal a substantiated finding, but the form also contains Ombudsman Office information and instruction that they may contact the SRA to file a complaint.
20. Comment: SOP 7B.6, #1(b) (pg. 10)-Assessment and Prevention Planning: Do we have access to LINK again?
Response: Even though LINK as we knew it no longer exists, there is a new process for obtaining this information through the EPO/DVO database. The link is https://webapp.chfsnet.ky.gov/EPO_DVO and the forms used to gain access are linked in the SOP.
21. Comment: SOP 7B.6, #1(b) (pg. 10)-Assessment and Case Planning: LINK is no longer operable and should be removed.
Response: See response to number 20.
22. Comment: SOP 7B.6, #4(g) (pg. 11)-Assessment and Prevention Planning: Could we add a link to the tip sheet defining critical areas of the body?
Response: This tip sheet will be added under 4(a).
23. Comment: SOP 7B.6, #7 (pg. 11)-Assessment and Case Planning: Does this mean that we complete a Prevention Plan on every investigation/FINSA if the child remains in the home regardless of finding?
Response: Wording has been changed in this procedure to clarify when a Prevention Plan is to be created with the family. The procedure now reads, “The SSW negotiates a Prevention Plan with the family when: (a)during the investigation, the SSW believes the child(ren)’s safety may be immediately compromised; or (b)A FINSA indicates a family is in need of services or an investigation substantiates abuse or neglect; and (c)the child remains in the home or in the temporary care of a relative.”
24. Comment: SOP 7B.6.1, paragraph 2 (pg. 12)-Continuous Quality Assessment (CQA): 1. PCC facilities, schools and daycares are already done under the Non Familial CQA. 2. Wouldn’t referrals that are done on children who are in OOHC or with a permanency goal of adoption be specialized investigations? 3. Maybe you could change the SOP to read that the FSOS determines if the abbreviated CQA is not appropriate instead of “any situation deemed inappropriate by FSOS.”